In Which Peter Beinart Makes Sense

I know, I’m as scared as you are: 

By implying that the only problem with the Iraq War was faulty intelligence, Marco Rubio implies that when the United States has compelling evidence that a hostile dictator is building “weapons of mass destruction,” the correct response is war. This represents a dramatic departure from historical American practice. In the 1940s, Harry Truman—a president Rubio admires—watched Joseph Stalin, one of the greatest mass murderers in modern history, build not just chemical and biological weapons, but a nuclear bomb. And yet Truman did not attack the U.S.S.R. In the early 1960s, John F. Kennedy, another Rubio favorite, watched Mao Zedong build a nuclear weapon, and made the same decision.

What if the response to “he/she/they have nuclear weapons!” was YEAH. AND. SO. WHAT? I mean, we’ve got a shit ton of them and despite the agitation of the Oathkeepers I see no NATO troops in my yard.

A.

2 thoughts on “In Which Peter Beinart Makes Sense

  1. SG says:

    Well, clearly you don’t live in Texas.

  2. darrelplant says:

    That’s not a very “muscular” attitude.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: